cons of running arch?

jamtat · 2008-06-03 18:04:52

Hi. I've been a Debian/Ubuntu user for about 6 years and am looking at Arch. I've been happy with Debian/Ubuntu for the most part, but since I tend to run slightly outdated hardware I'm not getting the best performance. From what I've read, Arch should give me improvements in that area.

Also, Arch seems set up to allow me to build a system in my preferred way. When I first started setting up Debian on my systems I'd start off with 5 floppies, then build up the system the way I wanted by using apt to download and install the stuff I wanted on the system. When Ubuntu came along, I switched over to it. Once they came up with a server/minimal installation CD, I was able to do pretty much the same sort of install with Ubuntu. But, as I said, I'm preparing to move away from Ubuntu owing to poor system performance.

I set up a testbed today and did a test install of Arch and, apart from a few hiccups having to do with unfamiliarity with pacman's workings, it went pretty well. Seems like I should be able to adapt fairly easily to Arch.

The main query I'd like to make in this thread is about the downsides or cons of running/using Arch. Apart from the poor performance I'm seeing on my hardware under Debian/Ubuntu, I can't say I have any major complaints about it. There were glitches, to be sure--especially when I was running Debian testing: I'd update the system and suddenly something would quit working. That got to be kind of a pain since I'd have to get involved in these troubleshooting sessions to find out what went wrong and how to fix it. Computers are not anywhere near my main line of work, so I have to limit my interaction with them on these kind of technical levels--one of the reasons I switched over to Ubuntu. Overall I'd say the main con of running Debian/Ubuntu, then, is the poor performance I see on my hardware. Any other problems amounted to the occasional technical glitch.

So, what about cons of running Arch? Can I expect it to be about the same, i.e., the occasional technical glitch that arises when updating the system? Anyone found any major downsides to running this distribution? I want to try and find out in advance about pitfalls before committing to it.

Thanks,
James

Cerebral · 2008-06-03 18:08:52

Well, you'll have to deal with me. I hear that's pretty painful sometimes.

The only glitches I've ever had running Arch are the occasional technical glitch from updating the system - and in many of the cases, it wasn't a problem with Arch, but either a problem with me (dumb-user syndrome) or the upstream software itself (since Arch packages most things pretty vanilla without patches).

Stythys · 2008-06-03 18:25:19

there are cons of using arch?

news to me

Misfit138 · 2008-06-03 18:25:36

Arch may be a bit more bleeding edge than you are used to if you are coming from Debian tesing/Ubuntu. Arch itself is extremely minimal, so as Cerebral said, the only breakage you should see will most likely be upstream bugs. Because it aims to be more bleeding edge, updates rarely, but sometimes, require a more interactive approach..

xaw · 2008-06-03 18:27:21

Most if not all of the problems that I have had in the past have been upstream related problems, and not arch problems, so pretty much as long as you check the main arch page for major changes that might have been implemented, the arch side is just fine :-)

Occasionally a kernel upgrade might change around a few things, but most of these quirks are easily fixed or avoided if you check what has been updated in the kernel before you upgrade the package on your system.

finferflu · 2008-06-03 18:28:34

As for me, the ratio pros/cons weights a lot on the pros. This is the only distribution that was able to satisfy me and in which I can't find any glitch. To be sure, there are things that I take for granted, things that Cerebral has mentioned. I don't see them as glitches, they are just part of the Linux eperience, and you'll have to deal with it. I've never seen a distro in which you never have to fix things after upgrades. In comparison Arch requires far less interaction. That is what I've seen in nearly 1 year of experience with this distro.

INCSlayer · 2008-06-03 18:42:38

there is one LARGE con with arch it is that once you have used it you will never want to switch to any other OS
it is as they say "once you go arch you never go back"

Last edited by INCSlayer (2008-06-03 18:42:48)

moljac024 · 2008-06-03 18:51:20

You will be assimilated into the collective.

INCSlayer · 2008-06-03 18:54:14

resistance is futile

heleos · 2008-06-03 18:55:52

One mans pro may be another mans con.
Some people may not like the minimalistic starting system, or the vanilla-ness, bleeding edge, etc.

That being said, I like it for all those reasons, and have no cons!

sniffles · 2008-06-03 18:57:30

INCSlayer wrote:

it is as they say "once you go arch you never go back"

I thought they said that about slack. Anyway, heard it being said about many OS and it was never true as far as I was concerned.

Cons to using Arch? I'm of the opinion that "source-based" (a` la` Gentoo/Source Mage/FreeBSD/etc.) is *the* way to go. Gentoo, FreeBSD (possibly/probably others) are "source-based" first and they provide various binary packages. Arch does it the other way around, mainly: binary packages first (and one can't argue that ABS does (or even tries to) the job of Portage/FreeBSD's ports).

Anyway, other than that I can't say I can really find any cons to using Arch Linux. Amongst the biggest "pros" (i.e. opposite of cons) to using Arch Linux is the fact that -I- am using it, and I rule/am the greatest/etc. (it's like everybody who's anybody knows that! heh.).

lucke · 2008-06-03 19:04:26

Some fiddlers dislike the fact that their Arch installation just works and there's no much fiddling to be done after installing and performing initial configuration.

:-(

skottish · 2008-06-03 19:51:22

Cerebral wrote:

Well, you'll have to deal with me. I hear that's pretty painful sometimes.

Cerebral has cooties.

dyscoria · 2008-06-03 20:00:57

Hmm cons of arch you ask?

I think the distro as a whole is a big con. Phrakture is just one big con-man, and please for the love of god do not believe people when they say he can lift a car above his head. I've _seen_ him with my own eyes. He's only 3foot tall, overweight and can barely lift his own bodyweight. Very disappointing.

I've sinced moved onto better distros like Parted Magic. Just awesome.

Stythys · 2008-06-03 20:22:20

dyscoria wrote:

Hmm cons of arch you ask?
I think the distro as a whole is a big con. Phrakture is just one big con-man, and please for the love of god do not believe people when they say he can lift a car above his head. I've _seen_ him with my own eyes. He's only 3foot tall, overweight and can barely lift his own bodyweight. Very disappointing.
I've sinced moved onto better distros like Parted Magic. Just awesome.

hehehehe

japetto · 2008-06-03 21:54:14

The only con for me is that I don't want to use other distros, even at work!

Bestiapeluda · 2008-06-03 22:22:17

Once you get accustomed to a rolling release distro, there is no turning back.

Gullible Jones · 2008-06-03 22:42:29

There aren't many developers, so when something big comes along (AUR cleanup, new version of GCC, etc.), noncritical bugs may go unfixed and packages unupdated for a time. That's pretty much the only one I can think of.

tigrmesh · 2008-06-03 23:43:03

I'm going to install ubuntu on my friend's computer; I know that I'm not going to want to go into her machine every few days to upgrade her system and monitor pacman's output to head off problems. So I would list the fact that an Arch install needs time and care as a con.

If you upgrade often and pay attention to pacman output, you'll be fine.

fuscia · 2008-06-04 01:44:15

i've only used arch a couple of weeks, but so far, i would compare it to driving a standard vs. driving an automatic (ubuntu, which i used for two years). it takes more skill, but it goes more your way. i'm still finding the package management a little overwhelming to get a grip on, but for an end user like me, it's a matter of not knowing if what i don't see is the size of an ant, or the size of a giant.

Redroar · 2008-06-04 03:31:48

The automatic vs standard transmission is a good analogy...I'll have to remember that. But that actually kind of sums it up. You have to interact with it much more than something like Ubuntu, but in the end it will run better, and be more efficient. But if you don't have the time to learn it and come to know it, it can be frustrating. At the same time, when something doesn't work in Ubuntu, it can take a great deal more effort because you have to coordinate many tools to do one thing, whereas in Arch you only have to mess with one tool: the command line.

lilsirecho · 2008-06-04 04:10:46

Try FaunOS first with a USB flash drive and you will get a full 600 packages of archlinux programs in a KDE enviro and be able to download via pacman with a PacTrac GUI. Or you can downsize the system to your liking.

Very straigjhtforward install via dd in terminal and "save session" is provided for retaining new packages via pacman and aufs.

Give it a whirl, no impact on your present system and it plays like archlinux.

sniffles · 2008-06-04 07:17:53

tigrmesh wrote:

I know that I'm not going to want to go into her machine every few days

I take it she's not hot then? If I had a hot female friend asking me to install an OS of my choice on her computer I'd just install OpenBSD (CLI - only) or Haiku OS just to make sure I'm "going into her machine" every few days....

moljac024 · 2008-06-04 08:00:52

sniffles wrote:

tigrmesh wrote:
I know that I'm not going to want to go into her machine every few days
I take it she's not hot then? If I had a hot female friend asking me to install an OS of my choice on her computer I'd just install OpenBSD (CLI - only) or Haiku OS just to make sure I'm "going into her machine" every few days....

Oh behave!

F · 2008-06-04 08:53:17

1. its a binary-based distribution (this might be a problem for you)
2. Absolutely every single time i've upgraded the system (i.e. kernel, nvidia drivers, etc.) X broke (running an nVidia gfx card). This is fixable, but still a pain.
3. packages in aur have, in my experience, extremely slow package maintainers.
4. the community is getting a little lame from all these ubuntu users coming thinking archlinux is just like ubuntu but with "less bloat" (as if they know what that even means). No offense here, btw.

If you can put up with that you'll do fine.

Last edited by F (2008-06-04 08:53:50)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-03 18:04:52

cons of running arch?

#2 2008-06-03 18:08:52

Re: cons of running arch?

#3 2008-06-03 18:25:19

Re: cons of running arch?

#4 2008-06-03 18:25:36

Re: cons of running arch?

#5 2008-06-03 18:27:21

Re: cons of running arch?

#6 2008-06-03 18:28:34

Re: cons of running arch?

#7 2008-06-03 18:42:38

Re: cons of running arch?

#8 2008-06-03 18:51:20

Re: cons of running arch?

#9 2008-06-03 18:54:14

Re: cons of running arch?

#10 2008-06-03 18:55:52

Re: cons of running arch?

#11 2008-06-03 18:57:30

Re: cons of running arch?

#12 2008-06-03 19:04:26

Re: cons of running arch?

#13 2008-06-03 19:51:22

Re: cons of running arch?

#14 2008-06-03 20:00:57

Re: cons of running arch?

#15 2008-06-03 20:22:20

Re: cons of running arch?

#16 2008-06-03 21:54:14

Re: cons of running arch?

#17 2008-06-03 22:22:17

Re: cons of running arch?

#18 2008-06-03 22:42:29

Re: cons of running arch?

#19 2008-06-03 23:43:03

Re: cons of running arch?

#20 2008-06-04 01:44:15

Re: cons of running arch?

#21 2008-06-04 03:31:48

Re: cons of running arch?

#22 2008-06-04 04:10:46

Re: cons of running arch?

#23 2008-06-04 07:17:53

Re: cons of running arch?

#24 2008-06-04 08:00:52

Re: cons of running arch?

#25 2008-06-04 08:53:17

Re: cons of running arch?

Board footer